## Facts

- The dispute concerned ownership of the coal and other minerals under a 117-acre tract originally owned by James Kiser in Virginia.
- In 1884, James Kiser and his wife conveyed the 117 acres to their son, Schofield Kiser; the deed contained no mineral exception but was not recorded until 1888.
- In 1887, James Kiser, his wife, and some of their children executed a deed purporting to convey the tract’s mineral estate to Tazewell Coal & Iron Co.
- Schofield Kiser possessed the land from shortly after the 1884 conveyance until 1891.
- In 1891, Schofield reconveyed the 117 acres to James Kiser and his wife “with the exception of the mineral interest.”
- In 1902, Tazewell conveyed fractional interests in the mineral estate to third parties; through subsequent conveyances the mineral estate passed to Clinchfield Coal Corporation by 1907.
- In 1951, Mont B. Kiser and his wife (successors in interest to the Kiser family) leased the mineral estate to lessees who began mining.
- Clinchfield filed an equity suit seeking a declaration that it owned the mineral estate and an injunction preventing Kiser and his lessees from mining.

## Issues

1. Whether Clinchfield, claiming through the 1887 mineral conveyance and later recorded deeds, held superior title to the mineral estate over the Kiser successors.
2. Whether Schofield Kiser’s possession under the earlier, unrecorded 1884 deed charged Tazewell (and thus Clinchfield) with notice sufficient to defeat Clinchfield’s mineral title.
3. How the 1891 reconveyance “except[ing] the mineral interest” should be construed in resolving competing mineral claims.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the circuit court decree for Clinchfield.
- The court held Clinchfield had valid title to the mineral estate underlying the 117 acres.
- The court rejected Mont Kiser’s asserted mineral rights and upheld an injunction barring Kiser and his lessees from mining the coal and other minerals.

## Legal Principles

- A purchaser who takes through a properly recorded chain of title is protected against adverse claims not shown in that chain, where the recording acts apply and the purchaser lacks notice of a competing interest.
- Possession-based notice principles yield to the recording system to the extent state recording law makes record notice controlling for subsequent purchasers without notice.
- A deed reconveying land “except[ing] the mineral interest” is given operative effect and may be treated as recognition that the mineral estate has been severed and is owned outside the reconveying grantor’s retained title, limiting successors’ contrary claims.
- Courts favor stability of recorded titles and will not allow stale, unrecorded claims—especially those inconsistent with later recorded instruments and conduct—to defeat long-relied-upon recorded mineral conveyances.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Clinchfield’s mineral title, derived from the 1887 mineral conveyance and sustained by a long recorded chain and the 1891 mineral exception, was superior to the Kiser successors’ claim based on the earlier unrecorded deed and possession, and it therefore enforced Clinchfield’s ownership by injunction against further mining by Kiser and his lessees.


Kiser v. Clinchfield Coal Corp., 200 Va. 517, 106 S.E.2d 601 (1959)